evolution of god
wf3h
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
John S. Wilkins
> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of books"
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
I received my copy on Friday. I'll be interested to read it, but a skim
through doesn't make me feel all that confident of its depth.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Suzanne
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1j22nsz.1m1yunscejv8nN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
does not believe that God is real. From what he says
about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
the blind leading the blind. In fact is would be like trying
a man in a courtroom with hearsay evidence, only. But a
person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
himself, that reveals himself to that individual. I have not
read this book, but if I take the reviewer's word as it is,
then I think that his review is a very interesting insight as
to how man views the biblical God from his point of view.
He sounds like a real ogre against sin. But that is exactly
who he is. He is repelled by sin as surely as a north pole
magnet cannot tolerate the presence of another north pole
magnet.
>
The reviewer explains that the author's view of God is
as a person that has not grown up in the Old Testament,
but that by the time that you get to the God of the New
Testament, he has grown up and even mellowed. So,
the author, according to the reviewer, marvels at the
contrast between the two views of God. But don't think
that believers have not noticed this, because they have.
>
Believers have noticed a few things in the scriptures
the author seems to have missed, like the tender moments
attributed to God towards those that put their faith and
trust in him, such as Abraham did, and also such as
Jacob did, and how King David did when he is spoken of
as being a man after God's own heart. Then the author
in his assessment of God in the Old Testament, according
to the reviewer's view of the author's book, has thoroughly
missed out on Isaiah, chapter 53, which tells of the future
Messiah who will take upon himself the sins of the whole
world, which is described in that chapter..."All we like
sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his
own way, and the Lord _hath layed on him_ the iniquity
of us all."
>
Also, all through the Old Testament the Lord begs, pleads,
rescues and tenderly nurtures the people that put their
trust in him, but to some readers, this goes unnoticed..
>
If anyone can relate to this, has anyone ever felt like people
did not really understand who you are deep inside, and
do they attribute thoughts to you that you don't think, and
do they act towards you like you are someone foreign to
who you know on the inside that you are? Well, God is
like that. He knows those feelings. He parts the Red Sea
for people, and then they start mistrusting him all over
again. God knew ahead of time that man would do that.
>
The way he resolved it is by coming, himself, in the form
of the Word of God, which is one of his triune personalities
coming to earth and getting himself born into his own
creation. Who the son is, according to that son, is God's
revelation to the world of who he really is. If you've
experienced the feeling that someone doesn't really know
who you are inside of yourself, and if you've wished that
you had the means to turn yourself inside out so that they
could see your good intents, God actually did that when
he sent the Messiah into the world. He was willing to
die in order to help man be reconciled to him. So this is
why the God of the Old Testament looks different to
some than the God of the New Testament. You are seeing
the whole picture of God when you put the two sides
together. According to what this reviewer's presentation
of the author is, a person can conclude that no matter
what the author believes or doesn't believe about God,
he shows how man may perceive of God as being.
>
A lot of people can relate to what I am saying. A wife might
say of her husband, "I work for him, clean his clothes, bear
his children, cook his dinner, grocery shop, mop his floor
and does he notice me?" And she will feel isolated and
like she is not understood. A husband might say, "I go to
work every day, work long, long hours, put up with all
kinds of abuse at work, and suck it up for her, and she
doesn't have a clue to how much I love her." Now these
may or may not have the true picture of their spouses,
but God can see into the heart of each of us and know
what we think. And while we cannot turn ourselves
inside out so that people can see what truly is in our
heart, God can do that and he did do that when he sent
his son to earth to reveal to the world the heart of God.
>
I do not know what the author says in his book about
Christ, but according to the reviewer, the author does
explore what he perceives of Christ as being.
>
According to the Bible, God does not change, though.
He was always and is always and shall ever be always
who he is from the beginning and on into the future.
What changed was the more obvious revelation of
the heart of God.
>
Suzanne
wf3h
> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in messagenews:1j22nsz.1m1yunscejv8nN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
>
>
> > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of
> >> books"
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
>
> > I received my copy on Friday. I'll be interested to read it, but a
> > skim
> > through doesn't make me feel all that confident of its depth.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> >http://evolvingthoughts.net
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
> does not believe that God is real. From what he says
> about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
> that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
> the blind leading the blind.
which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian scholar
can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
In fact is would be like trying
> a man in a courtroom with hearsay evidence, only. But a
> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> himself, that reveals himself to that individual. I have not
>
> Believers have noticed a few things in the scriptures
> the author seems to have missed, like the tender moments
> attributed to God towards those that put their faith and
> trust in him, such as Abraham did,
and what did god command joshua to do? slaughter every man women and
child...and dogs and cats...in the cities he conquered.
nice god.
Galileo49
> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of books"
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
I read his book "Non-Zero..." some years ago. Interesting prospective
which in the end I believe answers a question
that doesn't exist. To compare the inevitability of moral progression
toward some 'greater good' to evolutionary processes
is suspect. Both may appear to have a 'predestined' goal, however, in
the case of evolution the only goal is for a species
to perpetuate itself. Over time the organism may become more complex,
but this does not mean somehow it is better.
We have a tendency to 'judge' human complexity as being the inevitable
direction of evolution. Only by virtue of our intelligence and
consciousness are we able to rationalize this in the first place. But
for those that understand evolutionary processes, intelligence is just
ONE attribute in a long chain of modifications.
I recall my college biology teacher some years ago when being asked
whether evolution had a 'purpose' as to 'create' intelligent beings.
He laughed and said..."There is an equal chance that intelligence
could be an evolutionary dead end"; alluding to the fact that we have
become intelligent enough to modify the world around us in such a way
to excel our demise.
In regards to Wrights conclusion. We could in fact develop a moral
'code' that eventually becomes counterproductive to our
social existence. I would bet that a good anthropologist could give
cause on how many young civilizations were terminated
by their social construct and environment
epicur...@your_shoesaapt.net.au
his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1j22nsz.1m1yunscejv8nN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of
> >> books"
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
> >
> > I received my copy on Friday. I'll be interested to read it, but a
> > skim
> > through doesn't make me feel all that confident of its depth.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> > http://evolvingthoughts.net
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
> >
> The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
> does not believe that God is real. From what he says
> about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
> that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
> the blind leading the blind. In fact is would be like trying
> a man in a courtroom with hearsay evidence, only. But a
> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
In fact a person cannot know if God exists full stop. It is no
disadvantage to read the bible with no belief in a god, just as it
matters not that one believes or disbelieves in fairy tales when reading
fairy tales.
> I have not
> read this book, but if I take the reviewer's word as it is,
> then I think that his review is a very interesting insight as
> to how man views the biblical God from his point of view.
> He sounds like a real ogre against sin. But that is exactly
> who he is. He is repelled by sin as surely as a north pole
> magnet cannot tolerate the presence of another north pole
> magnet.
> >
> The reviewer explains that the author's view of God is
> as a person that has not grown up in the Old Testament,
> but that by the time that you get to the God of the New
> Testament, he has grown up and even mellowed. So,
> the author, according to the reviewer, marvels at the
> contrast between the two views of God. But don't think
> that believers have not noticed this, because they have.
The simplest explanation is that values changes and what stories people
made up about a god also changes. Whereas once the Abrahamic god parted
seas now he is content to burn patterns onto toasted sandwiches.
> Believers have noticed a few things in the scriptures
> the author seems to have missed, like the tender moments
> attributed to God towards those that put their faith and
> trust in him, such as Abraham did, and also such as
> Jacob did, and how King David did when he is spoken of
> as being a man after God's own heart. Then the author
> in his assessment of God in the Old Testament, according
> to the reviewer's view of the author's book, has thoroughly
> missed out on Isaiah, chapter 53, which tells of the future
> Messiah who will take upon himself the sins of the whole
> world, which is described in that chapter..."All we like
> sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his
> own way, and the Lord _hath layed on him_ the iniquity
> of us all."
Or to invoke Ockam's Razor the new testament was written to make the old
testament seem prophetic.
> Also, all through the Old Testament the Lord begs, pleads,
> rescues and tenderly nurtures the people that put their
> trust in him, but to some readers, this goes unnoticed..
> >
> If anyone can relate to this, has anyone ever felt like people
> did not really understand who you are deep inside, and
> do they attribute thoughts to you that you don't think, and
> do they act towards you like you are someone foreign to
> who you know on the inside that you are? Well, God is
> like that. He knows those feelings. He parts the Red Sea
> for people, and then they start mistrusting him all over
> again. God knew ahead of time that man would do that.
A real problem with an omniscient god. An omniscient god could never get
angry, could never be frustrated with what it knows is going to happen.
In the OT the god is very angry all the time and routinely resorts to
genocide and ethnic cleansing in a fit. This is the mark of a limited
god.
I suggest you read it again. The god that part seas can no longer do so
and must instead burn toasted sandwiches - being easier to burn than a
bush. The miracles that a god can perform is directly proportional to
the level of education of a people. The more educated, the fewer
miracles, thus the toasted sandwich demotion of deistic powers. In fact
well educated people are less likely to believe in gods.
> He was always and is always and shall ever be always
> who he is from the beginning and on into the future.
> What changed was the more obvious revelation of
> the heart of God.
Only if anyone believes, just like Santa Claus.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened.
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Perplexed in Peoria
> > > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of
> > >> books"
> >
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
> >
> > > I received my copy on Friday. I'll be interested to read it, but a
> > > skim through doesn't make me feel all that confident of its depth.
> >
> > does not believe that God is real. From what he says
> > about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
> > that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
> > the blind leading the blind.
>
> which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian scholar
> can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
Or like a creationist writing a book about the ToE. Or a holocaust-
denier writing a book about Bergen-Belsen.
While I am not a believer myself, I can relate to Suzanne's complaint.
Believers get very little respect from the intelligensia - even to the
point where a book about the evolution of (somewhat mistaken) ideas
of God, is titled as if it were God Himself that were evolving.
Technically, the biologists here should point out that *populations*
evolve, not individuals. So only polytheists can talk about evolving
gods. Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain
true to the biological metaphors. Atheists, of course, need to talk
about evolving ideas and myths. It is just impolite for them to talk
about 'evolving God(s)' as if the deity were manifestly nothing more
than the myth.
And, when you come down to it, "Developing God" might make an
interesting work of speculative theology. To the extent that I understand
it, Aquinas's account of the Trinity is a bit like Turing's account of
morphogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
http://www.swintons.net/deodands/archives/000091.html
There is also the old thing about the ID argument - intelligence
is needed to create intelligence - so who created God's intelligence?
Well, the book could explain that God's intelligence wasn't created -
it developed from something simpler.
And then of course, there is the phenomenon discussed in the book,
in which the OT fire-and-brimstone God seems to have mellowed.
Suzanne and traditional theology seem to agree with the book that
it is only man's *idea* of God that has mellowed. But I think that
it makes for a more interesting and believable theology if God Himself
changes over time. After all, why do we pray, if not to change God's
mind about something? The OT certainly uses language suggesting
that God's mood changes - often just after learning some unpleasant
truth. So how come 'sophisticated' theology describes God as
immutable?
Of course, as Suzanne points out, since I am a non-believer myself,
my suggestions are another case of the blind leading the ... hmmm ...
whatever.
Desertphile
wrote:
> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1j22nsz.1m1yunscejv8nN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of
> >> books"
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
> > I received my copy on Friday. I'll be interested to read it, but a
> > skim
> > through doesn't make me feel all that confident of its depth.
> The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
> does not believe that god is real.
But gods aren't real, as far as anyone and everyone knows. If he
wrote a review of a book titled "The evolution of leprechauns" you
would see the same thing.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Louann Miller
@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
> But a
> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
That would make it God's own fault if anybody, ever, doesn't believe in
H/him. And missionaries are wasting their time.
wf3h
wrote:
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
.
>
> > which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian scholar
> > can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
>
> Or like a creationist writing a book about the ToE. Or a holocaust-
> denier writing a book about Bergen-Belsen.
>
> While I am not a believer myself, I can relate to Suzanne's complaint.
> Believers get very little respect from the intelligensia - even to the
> point where a book about the evolution of (somewhat mistaken) ideas
> of God, is titled as if it were God Himself that were evolving.
i haven't read the book only the review. but i don't know what
'intelligensia' you're talking about. certainly alot of people don't
respect religion, but who are 'the intelligensia' you're talking
about?
>
> Technically, the biologists here should point out that *populations*
> evolve, not individuals.
they do. i'm not an evolutionary biologist but that message has been
communicated to people like me, so they are doing that.
> So only polytheists can talk about evolving
> gods
why can't a concept evolve? we see ideas of human rights change
throughout history...ideas about freedom, slavery ,etc. why is god
immune?
> Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain
> true to the biological metaphors.
? does this mean god has a progression? i don't think so. 'allah', to
me, based on my view of those who believe in him, is much more
virulent than jesus is, IMHO. how does a god 'develop'?
Atheists, of course, need to talk
> about evolving ideas and myths. It is just impolite for them to talk
> about 'evolving God(s)' as if the deity were manifestly nothing more
> than the myth.
well..no. it's provable the idea of god changes with time and
tradition. how do you differentiate god from belief in god? is there
any way to define who god is apart from looking at what those who
believe in him say he is? and there are gods of myths....even those
who believe in god today admit that.
>
> And then of course, there is the phenomenon discussed in the book,
> in which the OT fire-and-brimstone God seems to have mellowed.
> Suzanne and traditional theology seem to agree with the book that
> it is only man's *idea* of God that has mellowed. But I think that
> it makes for a more interesting and believable theology if God Himself
> changes over time.
again, how do you tell? what's the difference? it's like the tree
falling in a forest....if there were no humans around would god still
exist?
Perplexed in Peoria
> On Jun 29, 9:05 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > While I am not a believer myself, I can relate to Suzanne's complaint.
> > Believers get very little respect from the intelligensia - even to the
> > point where a book about the evolution of (somewhat mistaken) ideas
> > of God, is titled as if it were God Himself that were evolving.
>
> i haven't read the book only the review. but i don't know what
> 'intelligensia' you're talking about. certainly alot of people don't
> respect religion, but who are 'the intelligensia' you're talking
> about?
Gee, I don't know. People who post links to NYT articles maybe?
;-)
To be honest, I'm pretty sure that writers of NYT book reviews
(and certainly contributers to the NY Review of Books) qualify
as intelligentia (spelling corrected, sorry about that) by anyone's
definition.
Burkhard
It can change, that is uncontested. The question is if we should use
the word "evolve" for this type of change.
If we define evolution as descent with modification, concepts are et
best borderline (only if you can say maybe that one concept gave rise
to two new, related but different ones) So "slavery" in your example
might be said to evolve into servitude or debt bondage.
>> Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain true to
>> the biological metaphors.
>
> ? does this mean god has a progression? i don't think so. 'allah', to
> me, based on my view of those who believe in him, is much more
> virulent than jesus is, IMHO. how does a god 'develop'?
>
Like every other thing, I'd say, by changing its properties (either to
the better or to the worse, of course)
So in the same way in which we can say that Sherlock Holmes developed
from the first novel to the last (got more broody, but also more
sensitive and changed his attitude towards woman somewhat) we can say
that the god of the OT has characteristics different from the one of the NT
Neither Holmes or God evolved though.
> Atheists, of course, need to talk
>> about evolving ideas and myths. It is just impolite for them to
>> talk about 'evolving God(s)' as if the deity were manifestly
>> nothing more than the myth.
>
> well..no. it's provable the idea of god changes with time and
> tradition. how do you differentiate god from belief in god? is there
> any way to define who god is apart from looking at what those who
> believe in him say he is?
Possibly not, but does this matter for the ontological difference? Take
science as an analogy. Nature stays the same, our knowledge of nature
changes. Nonetheless, we can only find out about nature if we look at
what people currently now about it.
I'm a bit surprised you make this argument though? In another post, you
made a very good argument for the need to distinguish between believing
in God and believing in the Bible. That seems to me to be essentially
the same (ontological) difference. The one is about the other.
and there are gods of myths....even those
> who believe in god today admit that.
But that is because most theists are atheists towards most gods. They
tend to get a bit shaky when the issue becomes which one of them, and
why, is the real one.
So they may be happy to say that other gods (the non existing, mythical
ones) evolve,and mean the belief about these gods. But they would be
as wrong (disrespectful or conceptually confused)towards that entity as
an atheists saying about their God that he evolves.
Apart of course from those gods that really do evolve, like the Greek
Parthenon which has a clear evolution from the species of primordial
Gods like Gaia to the titans as their offspring. But they evolve as
gods, from an insider perspective, not (just) as myth, from an outsider
perspective
>
>> And then of course, there is the phenomenon discussed in the book,
>> in which the OT fire-and-brimstone God seems to have mellowed.
>> Suzanne and traditional theology seem to agree with the book that
>> it is only man's *idea* of God that has mellowed. But I think that
>> it makes for a more interesting and believable theology if God
>> Himself changes over time.
>
> again, how do you tell? what's the difference? it's like the tree
> falling in a forest....if there were no humans around would god still
> exist?
>
It is a question of taking the insider or outsider perspective. From the
insider perspective, the question "did the Christian God develop" makes
conceptual sense, and you can either argue no or yes. Evidence for this
would have to be mainly scriptural, I'd guess, depending on your
religion and what it considers valid sources.
The question "did he evolve" probably does not make sense, not even if
you treat Christ as the "descent with modification" of God. (only two
individuals at best, no populations of Gods like in Greece)
From an outsider perspective of a historian, the question is
meaningless, but should be phrased as "did the belief of God change over
time"? and you have a much greater range of sources available to answer
this question, including possibly later monotheistic religions if you
claim that they are in some form "offspring" (or spin offs) of
Christianity.
If you then furthermore have some theoretical commitment to memes or
some such, you can even ask if the belief _evolved_ though as above,
this is more a metaphorical use
Perplexed in Peoria
> On Jun 29, 9:05 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > So only polytheists can talk about evolving
> > gods
>
> why can't a concept evolve? we see ideas of human rights change
> throughout history...ideas about freedom, slavery ,etc. why is god
> immune?
>
> > Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain
> > true to the biological metaphors.
>
> ? does this mean god has a progression? i don't think so. 'allah', to
> me, based on my view of those who believe in him, is much more
> virulent than jesus is, IMHO. how does a god 'develop'?
>
>> Atheists, of course, need to talk
>> about evolving ideas and myths. It is just impolite for them to talk
>> about 'evolving God(s)' as if the deity were manifestly nothing more
>> than the myth.
>
> well..no. it's provable the idea of god changes with time and
> tradition. how do you differentiate god from belief in god? is there
> any way to define who god is apart from looking at what those who
> believe in him say he is? and there are gods of myths....even those
> who believe in god today admit that.
It is really difficult for me to believe that you are this dense. Did you
really miss the whole central point of my posting, which was to
draw the distinction between the evolution (or development) of the
*concept* of God and the evolution (or development) of God
Himself. Of course, from your point of view (or mine), the latter
topic is fiction, and from Suzanne's viewpoint it is heresy, but it
is clearly a different topic from the former.
"how do you differentiate god from belief in god?" Maybe by
noticing that one doesn't exist and the other does? The better
question is "How do you confuse them?".
Furthermore, regardless of the veracity of your views on the 'virulence'
of Islam, how are they relevant to the appropriateness of the
biological metaphor of 'development' as applied to religion. Do
you think that organisms become less virulent as they develop?
rmcbane
I just love your analogy. God is repelled by sin as a north pole magnet
repels a north pole magnet. Like magnetic poles repel each other and
since God is repelled by sin, god must be like sin if you are to keep
the analogy consistent. Wonderful Susan!
<snip>
--
Richard McBane
Ken Denny
> the author seems to have missed, like the tender moments
> attributed to God towards those that put their faith and
> trust in him, such as Abraham did, and also such as
> Jacob did, and how King David did when he is spoken of
> as being a man after God's own heart.
Abraham, "I love you so much I need to know that you'd be willing to
kill your own son if I commanded you to"
It's tender moments like this that make Hallmark what it is.
Mark Isaak
> [...] who are 'the intelligensia' you're talking about?
Whenever I see the word used, it seems to mean "people who disagree with
me and can support their differences with facts and convincing
arguments."
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Louann Miller
news:pan.2009.06.29....@earthlink.net:
>> [...] who are 'the intelligensia' you're talking about?
>
> Whenever I see the word used, it seems to mean "people who disagree with
> me and can support their differences with facts and convincing
> arguments."
It definitely includes academic credentials and usually but not always
left-of-far-right politics. Limbaugh could call George Will one, but would
more likely call (the late) Stephen Jay Gould one. Neither would use the
term in return about him.
Desertphile
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 4:31 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> > > "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of
> > > >> books"
> > >
> > > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?ref=books
> > >
> > > > I received my copy on Friday. I'll be interested to read it, but a
> > > > skim through doesn't make me feel all that confident of its depth.
> > >
> > > The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
> > > does not believe that God is real. From what he says
> > > about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
> > > that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
> > > the blind leading the blind.
> >
> > which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian scholar
> > can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
> Or like a creationist writing a book about the ToE. Or a holocaust-
> denier writing a book about Bergen-Belsen.
>
> While I am not a believer myself, I can relate to Suzanne's complaint.
> Believers get very little respect from the intelligensia - even to the
> point where a book about the evolution of (somewhat mistaken) ideas
> of God, is titled as if it were God Himself that were evolving.
Gods evolving and the ideas of gods evolving are the exact same
things.
> Technically, the biologists here should point out that *populations*
> evolve, not individuals. So only polytheists can talk about evolving
> gods. Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain
Okay, I give up: where is one going to find monotheists? What cult
does not have more than one god?
CUTS
Desertphile
<loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in news:hZ_1m.1874$bq1.351
> @nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
> > But a
> > person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> > himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
So, the gods that reveal themselves to a person get the tithes but
the gods that forgot to reveal themselves to that person does not
get the tithes?
> That would make it God's own fault if anybody, ever, doesn't believe in
> him. And missionaries are wasting their time.
The whole point of missionaries is to collect money and political
power: they don't need gods for that.
Gary Bohn
<snip>
>
> The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself, does not believe
> that God is real. From what he says about the author of the book, it
> sounds like he is saying that he also does not believe that God exists.
> Sort of like the blind leading the blind. In fact is would be like
> trying a man in a courtroom with hearsay evidence, only. But a person
> cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord, himself, that reveals
> himself to that individual.
This is what passes for a logically reasoned argument in
your world?
<snip>
> Suzanne
Suzanne
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:S_22m.5079$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
already has his mind made up about something in his
secret will that man cannot see, and that he influences
man's heart to get him to make requests of him (of God)
that God wanted him to request in the first place. This
can be determined from a study of the three wills of
God, called by some theologians by different titles,
but mostly the Revealed will of God, the Permissable
will of God, and the Secret (or Ultimate) will of God.
The resolution of this mystery is that God had in mind
all along what he wanted to happen, and so therefore
really did not actually change after all. : )
>
> Of course, as Suzanne points out, since I am a non-believer myself,
> my suggestions are another case of the blind leading the ... hmmm
> ...
> whatever.
>
The person that is blind is not someone like you, but is a
person the Bible refers to that will take someone with him,
and then together with that person, fall into a ditch. Anyone
can see that you read everything that I wrote (thank you!) and
then gave your opinion and insight. We had been talking
about, in another post, the poem The Blind Men And The
Elephant," which tells of some blindmen that went to see
an elephant, but each felt a different part of the elephant
and when they compared notes, they felt that the others
had not accurately described what they could perceive of.
You are more like that wise gentleman in the old sitcom
Kung Fu that said to David Carridine, "What do you hear...
Grasshopper?...as he lead Carridine's character to pay
attention to more than just what things he first might
perceive of.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3PWdnVfKec0_WNXX...@giganews.com...
means that he is going to be fair with everybody.
We all wonder about a baby that may die, or a
person who has mental problems, or someone
that dies young or someone that lives in some
remote place. I don't know how he will handle
those, but he will be just, according to what the
scriptures say. But of those that had a chance,
they will stand before God, too, and the Bible
says that the Lord says they will have no excuse.
It says that God has given all people some light.
>
I think that means that God knows where he has
gone via the Holy Spirit and how he has begged
and pleaded with that individual through others,
through the Bible, through the hearing of the
gospel, and through the tug that they feel on
their heart to give in to him. It goes beyond the
intellect and into the spirit of a person to know
that he is there and is calling them to himself.
Some children and younger people come to him,
and then later in their lives go way out on some
intellectual trek. But he remembers them and
has never forgotten them and wants them home
again. You know the word "redeem?" I understand
that it means literally "to buy someone or some
thing back." I've read of this saying that says:
"If you love someone, set him free. If he comes back
to you, he's yours...if not, he was never meant to be."
I believe that God loves us enough to set us free
so that we can choose.
>
Suzanne
wf3h
> "Louann Miller" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3PWdnVfKec0_WNXX...@giganews.com...> "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote in news:hZ_1m.1874$bq1.351
> > @nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> But a
> >> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> >> himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
>
> > That would make it God's own fault if anybody, ever, doesn't believe
> > in
> > H/him. And missionaries are wasting their time.
>
> The Bible indicates that God is just. To me that
> means that he is going to be fair with everybody.
> We all wonder about a baby that may die, or a
> person who has mental problems, or someone
> that dies young or someone that lives in some
> remote place. I don't know how he will handle
> those, but he will be just, according to what the
> scriptures say.
since he obviously isn't just, the problem of theodicy remains. the
idea that god could order the slaughter of innocents...as he did in
joshua...means one must question whether the picture painted of god in
the bible is right. and if it ISN'T then one must question whether
creationists have a clue about the nature of the bible, let alone the
nature of god.
> I believe that God loves us enough to set us free
> so that we can choose.
>
given the fact you're wrong about science, because of your belief in
the bible, one must question your conclusions about god. that's the
penalty you pay for being deluded.
Andrew Cunningham
> already has his mind made up about something in his
> secret will that man cannot see, and that he influences
> man's heart to get him to make requests of him (of God)
> that God wanted him to request in the first place. This
> can be determined from a study of the three wills of
> God, called by some theologians by different titles,
> but mostly the Revealed will of God, the Permissable
> will of God, and the Secret (or Ultimate) will of God.
> The resolution of this mystery is that God had in mind
> all along what he wanted to happen, and so therefore
> really did not actually change after all. : )
So what you're saying is that this deity will give people a test while
knowing the inevitable outcome of failure? That the god is willing to
commit genocide to cleanse the world of people whom it has the ability
to change? Then, after all of this, would wander around a tiny,
specific area of the planet for a brief period of time to teach
brotherhood and peace?
Either this deity is changing, having mood swings, or it's some kind
of psychopathic, hypocritical, homicidal, trickster god. Perhaps a
little of everything.
Louann Miller
@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> But a
>>> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
>>> himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
>>
>> That would make it God's own fault if anybody, ever, doesn't believe
>> in
>> H/him. And missionaries are wasting their time.
>>
> The Bible indicates that God is just. To me that
> means that he is going to be fair with everybody.
> We all wonder about a baby that may die, or a
> person who has mental problems, or someone
> that dies young or someone that lives in some
> remote place. I don't know how he will handle
> those, but he will be just, according to what the
> scriptures say. But of those that had a chance,
> they will stand before God, too, and the Bible
> says that the Lord says they will have no excuse.
> It says that God has given all people some light.
I'm not trying to change your beliefs, or even your prose style. But it
would be nice to get you to the point where, when you contradict yourself
180 degrees in consecutive posts, you NOTICE you've done so.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3PWdnVfKec0_WNXX...@giganews.com...
>> "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in news:hZ_1m.1874$bq1.351
>> @nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> But a
>>> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
>>> himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
>>
>> That would make it God's own fault if anybody, ever, doesn't believe
>> in
>> H/him. And missionaries are wasting their time.
>>
>The Bible indicates that God is just.
The bible is a work of fiction.
[snip more crap.]
--
Bob.
Walter Bushell
<f39a41a3-23c8-4bdd...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Cunningham <azie...@gmail.com> wrote:
But you see, God has other fish to fry than human beings and their
happiness. Perhaps Satan being a more sensitive being rates more of
God's benevolence than mere human beings. The book of Job certainly
supports this view.
Walter Bushell
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> And then of course, there is the phenomenon discussed in the book,
> in which the OT fire-and-brimstone God seems to have mellowed.
> Suzanne and traditional theology seem to agree with the book that
> it is only man's *idea* of God that has mellowed.
God got worst in the so called New Testament. In the old when you died
you were basically quits with him, in the new he will torture you
forever. This is better?
Matt Silberstein
<pr...@panix.com> in <proto-152F00....@news.panix.com>
wrote:
If he's frying, I'm glad it is other fish.
> Perhaps Satan being a more sensitive being rates more of
>God's benevolence than mere human beings. The book of Job certainly
>supports this view.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Suzanne
"Andrew Cunningham" <azie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f39a41a3-23c8-4bdd...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> There's a wonderful old argument about how God
>> already has his mind made up about something in his
>> secret will that man cannot see, and that he influences
>> man's heart to get him to make requests of him (of God)
>> that God wanted him to request in the first place. This
>> can be determined from a study of the three wills of
>> God, called by some theologians by different titles,
>> but mostly the Revealed will of God, the Permissable
>> will of God, and the Secret (or Ultimate) will of God.
>> The resolution of this mystery is that God had in mind
>> all along what he wanted to happen, and so therefore
>> really did not actually change after all. : )
>
>
> So what you're saying is that this deity will give people a test
> while
> knowing the inevitable outcome of failure? That the god is willing
> to
> commit genocide to cleanse the world of people whom it has the
> ability
> to change? Then, after all of this, would wander around a tiny,
> specific area of the planet for a brief period of time to teach
> brotherhood and peace?
>
you imagine a father with two little boys and the man
has just returned from a business trip. His boys are both
having a birthday in a few days and he promises to take
them to a department store and they can have whatever
they want in the store in the way of recreational toys.
The day arrives and they go to that store. They walk in
and the first thing the boys see are volley balls and
basketballs. They plead, "Oh, Daddy, can we have these
balls?" The father says "Yes...but let's just look a little
bit more before you decide." They repeat this scene
several times and each time the father says "Sure you
can have that, but before you decide, let's look just a
bit more." Finally they end up in the bicycle department
and there on display are two bright red 10 speed bicycles.
The boys go absolutely bananas and say, "Oh, Daddy, can
we have those?" The father says, "Yes, boys, is that what
you want?" They jump up and down and say "Oh, yes, yes,
yes." The father knew all along what his boys' ulimate
wish would be, and he led them to that very place which
he had in mind all along. That's what the secret will/ultimate
will of God is like.
>
> Either this deity is changing, having mood swings, or it's some kind
> of psychopathic, hypocritical, homicidal, trickster god. Perhaps a
> little of everything.
>
is the nature of God, but without understanding what is
going on in perhaps the Old Testament stories. Just take
for example the simplicity of the story of the father and
the two boys above. Was the father being mean when he
asked his boys to wait and look a little further at what
was in the store? They could have thought that if they
were critical towards their father. Was the father being
mean to tell them they could have anything, but then
act like he didn't want them to have the basket balls or
volleyballs? Was he tricking them? Or did he have
something good in mind he knew they would like better
than the earlier things they picked out? Was he a monster
for devising this trip to the store in the first place? If he
knew the outcome, why would he want to string the boys
along like that? Why didn't he just give them the bicycles
and be done with it? Because he wanted the boys to have
a relationship with him so that he could teach them to
be a little more patient. And wasn't he ultimately wanting
to give them something that would make them happy?
>
Thanks for answering. : )
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-152F00....@news.panix.com...
book of Job because Satan was accusing Job in the first place,
and being anything but sensitive and caring towards Job. He
was jealous of God's love of Job. He said to God, that if God
took things away from Job, that Job would curse him to his
face.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
as being a contrast between one who hates sin, and one who
has abundunt pardon and mercy.
>
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
it's about what the Bible says about God. Clearly
the conversation above is about God and who he
is.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"rmcbane" <rmc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Re62m.1875$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ken Denny" <k...@kendenny.com> wrote in message
news:de93a4a6-2d32-4c02...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
saying and in what the actual details of the story
show. God is about to demonstrate to them
that he is their savior...and that they didn't have
to pay for their own sins. He reveals his salvation
to them. The details resolve any misunderstandings...
>
When Abraham and Isaac were going forward to
this moment when Isaac was supposedly going to
sacrifice his son, two servants were with them. He
told them at one point when they were getting near
to the place this was to take place to stay back and wait.
>
He said to them that they both would return, which means
that Abraham knew God would not want him to go through
with it. He shows this twice. The second time is when
Isaac says to his father,"Where is the lamb that is going to be
sacrificed?"...not understanding that he is the supposed
sacrifice. Abraham's replies to Isaac, "God will provide
himself the lamb." And sure enough, when Abraham went
to obey the Lord, God had prepared a ram to be caught in a
nearby thicket. These details are in Genesis 22:3-5, 7-8,
13-14. Many scholars note the significance in v. 8 the
word "himself," and take it to mean that God, himself,
will be the substitute sacrifice, ultimately, which here
points prophetically to the Messiah who would be
the substitute sacrifice. Christ is known as Emmanuel,
which means God with us.
>
It's interesting that in Jerusalem the place called the
Dome of the Rock houses what is traditionally known
as the actual rock upon which Isaac and Abraham were,
and just to the north of that rock is Calvary, which has a
formation that looks like a skull, and the Bible says that
Jesus was crucified at the place of the skull.
>
One more detail and that is what Abraham called this
location after this took place that day:
Genesis 22:14:
"And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh:
as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall
be seen."
The name "Jehovah Jireh" means "The Lord will provide."
"It shall be seen" means that in the future it will take
place.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
It's a stretch to say that God must be like sin.
A really wierd stretch, in fact a twist. So don't
twist the truth.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:proto-02B4DE....@news.panix.com...
>> In article <S_22m.5079$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
>> "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And then of course, there is the phenomenon discussed in the book,
>>> in which the OT fire-and-brimstone God seems to have mellowed.
>>> Suzanne and traditional theology seem to agree with the book that
>>> it is only man's *idea* of God that has mellowed.
>>
>> God got worst in the so called New Testament. In the old when you
>> died
>> you were basically quits with him, in the new he will torture you
>> forever. This is better?
>>
>Both the Old Testament and the New Testament
are works of fiction that
>show
a fictional
> God
>as being a contrast between one who
is very evil himself but
>hates sin
in man,
> and one who
>has abundunt
anger and retribution without
>pardon and mercy.
>>
>Suzanne
>>
I've corrected your comment.
--
Bob.
rmcbane
So it is okay with you that your analogy says God is sin?
--
Richard McBane
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
A work of fiction.
>says about God.
An invention of primitive man.
> Clearly
>the conversation above is about God and who he
>is.
A fictional character.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The truth is that, if you go by your bible stories, your god is a very
evil entity.
Lucky for us he is just a fictional character.
--
Bob.
Louann Miller
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>> I'm not trying to change your beliefs, or even your prose style. But
> Louann, what I've written above is not about me,
> it's about what the Bible says about God. Clearly
> the conversation above is about God and who he
> is.
The conversation IS about God, and in your conversing you make
contradictory assertions about God without noticing you're doing it. In
one post you said that God has the sole and absolute ability, at any
time, to make anyone a believer (and therefore saved). In the next you
said that God is in no way responsible when anyone is not a believer (and
therefore is damned.) God is the only one who can produce good result A,
but _at one and the same time_ He is not to blame if A fails to happen.
It's not just you. Most Christian theologians would gnaw their arms off
at the shoulder before admitting that the principle "with great power
goes great responsibility" could be applied to God. They're basically
"might makes right" when you peel away enough layers.
Walter Bushell
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But I resolved that. You see God in his infinite benevolence,
omniscience and power does care deeply for each of us. However, He care
for Satan more. See, a parent may deeply love his dogs, cats and birds,
but when there is a conflict with a child, the child almost always gets
the parent on his or her side. Just the breaks, baby-cakes.
OTOH, some people think Satan is just God when he's sober.
Mike L
> "rmcbane" <rmcb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Re62m.1875$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > Suzanne wrote:
[...]
>
> >> The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
> >> does not believe that God is real. From what he says
> >> about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
> >> that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
> >> the blind leading the blind. In fact is would be like trying
> >> a man in a courtroom with hearsay evidence, only. But a
> >> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> >> himself, that reveals himself to that individual. I have not
> >> read this book, but if I take the reviewer's word as it is,
> >> then I think that his review is a very interesting insight as
> >> to how man views the biblical God from his point of view.
> >> He sounds like a real ogre against sin. But that is exactly
> >> who he is. He is repelled by sin as surely as a north pole
> >> magnet cannot tolerate the presence of another north pole
> >> magnet.
>
> > I just love your analogy. God is repelled by sin as a north pole
> > magnet repels a north pole magnet. Like magnetic poles repel each
> > other and since God is repelled by sin, god must be like sin if you
> > are to keep the analogy consistent. Wonderful Susan!
>
> Yes, thank you, you are all heart, aren't you? : )
> It's a stretch to say that God must be like sin.
> A really wierd stretch, in fact a twist. So don't
> twist the truth.
You're the one who devised the twisted analogy. So don't blame your
readers.
--
Mike.
Andrew Cunningham
> "Andrew Cunningham" <azier...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You forgot one aspect to the story--the father plans to punish the two
children for what they pick out. See, he gives them a test in which
they must choose something, but that he plans to punish them violently
if they don't choose a specific thing he has set in his mind(sort of
similar to how a deity would know for certain that people would eat a
forbidden object from a certain tree and punish them anyways).
Effectively, this man would be considered psychotic to some degree,
wouldn't he? What kind of father would create a scenario with the sole
knowledge that, no matter what, a violent consequence is all that will
come of it? Would you house train your dog by leaving it in the house
all day, then punish it severely when it, through lack of an
alternative, goes to the bathroom inside the house?
I could also go further into detail with my previous statements, such
as punishing entire civilizations of people for an eternity just
because the deity chose to never make his presence known outside a
tiny fraction of the entire planet. Or how the same deity would rather
murder nearly all of mankind than to simply use its supposedly
omnipotent powers to change everyone for the better. However, I feel
that just the first part is all that really needs to be addressed for
now.
Suzanne
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:ef11d9b0-4b80-49ff...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 7:14 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> "Louann Miller" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3PWdnVfKec0_WNXX...@giganews.com...> "Suzanne"
> <shil...@flash.net> wrote in news:hZ_1m.1874$bq1.351
> > @nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>
> > means that he is going to be fair with everybody.
> > We all wonder about a baby that may die, or a
> > person who has mental problems, or someone
> > that dies young or someone that lives in some
> > remote place. I don't know how he will handle
> > those, but he will be just, according to what the
> > scriptures say.
>
> since he obviously isn't just, the problem of theodicy remains. the
> idea that god could order the slaughter of innocents...as he did in
> joshua...means one must question whether the picture painted of god
> in
> the bible is right. and if it ISN'T then one must question whether
> creationists have a clue about the nature of the bible, let alone
> the
> nature of god.
>
> > I believe that God loves us enough to set us free
> > so that we can choose.
>
> given the fact you're wrong about science, because of your belief
> in
> the bible, one must question your conclusions about god. that's the
> penalty you pay for being deluded.
>
must think that if someone doesn't believe the Bible, they
can tell others who God is more accurately than those that
do believe the Bible. That's illogical. You also indicate
that if you question someone, then you are not deluded,
but they are because you question them. Bless your heart.
>
Suzanne
>
>
Suzanne
On Jul 1, 3:43 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> "Andrew Cunningham" <azier...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f39a41a3-23c8-4bdd...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
of punishing his boys. He told them that they could
have anything in the store that they wanted, and he
meant it. He gave them free will. He guided them though
towards what he knew they would want most of all
because he understood his little children very well.
>
However, you are reading into this what you must feel
about God that I don't think is true. You are assuming
that God is an ogre. You don't understand that Satan
wanted to sabotage God's creation and take it over and
himself be God. God's salvation (the Messiah dying for
people's sins and taking the punishment for them) is a
rescue, not a straight-jacket.
>
As for the dog that you entered into the story that was
not there originally, no I would not do that to a dog.
But neither did the father lock the boys in the house,
so I don't quite get the comparison. But again, you
seem to have the idea that God is mean like that. He
isn't. Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is in
the Bible? It's called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."
What it is, is man attributing unto Satan, the works
of the Lord. In other words, man mistrusts God and
he thinks God is up to something, rather than that God
loves us and wants to rescue us from the mortality that
Satan wanted us to be caught in.
>
> I could also go further into detail with my previous statements,
> such
> as punishing entire civilizations of people for an eternity just
> because the deity chose to never make his presence known outside a
> tiny fraction of the entire planet. Or how the same deity would
> rather
> murder nearly all of mankind than to simply use its supposedly
> omnipotent powers to change everyone for the better. However, I feel
> that just the first part is all that really needs to be addressed
> for
> now.
>
to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and that God indulged
him, and showed him why he was going to destroy them?
Whatever things you are talking about above, is just like
that.
>
Now, I'm not sure what Bible stories you are referring to
above, but let's take the flood of Noah for example. Why
did God destroy all of those people? In the first place, he
had plans for people like you to be born. He saw the future
and wanted you to have a chance, and all of us that live now.
But in Genesis 5, it tells about the fallen angels taking
earth women as their wives and producing notorious
children. The Bible indicates that angels can't be redeemed.
I think it's because unlike man, they have full knowledge.
>
In the first place, he already had promised Adam and Eve
that the Seed/Redeemer (Christ/Messiah) would be born
in the future that would take away sin, subdue the devil,
etc. But Satan evidently had plans to produce a race of
people that were half-angel so that no one could be
saved and so that no Savior could be born who was fully
man and fully God. The Savior could not be born if the
race was not purely human. The Savior had to be sinless
in order to be the perfect sacrifice to pay for our sins.
Satan is a fallen angel. He is also very smart. He knew
that the Messiah could not be born in a state that was
unredeemable and he knew that God would carry out his
promises to Abraham, and various patriarchs, Before
Jesus died on the cross, people would die and stay dead.
But the curse was overthrown when Christ paid the
penalty for the sins of the whole world. All will now
wake up from death and that forever. Here is where it
says this:
1 Corinthians 15:22:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive."
So God has good reasons for the things that he does,
that man does not always understand.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
places for example:
Daniel 12:2:
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt."
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:709m45p6af5vjj198...@4ax.com...
my words like I had written them. I did not write
the above.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
said "God has the sole and absolute ability, at any time,
to make anyone a believer..." or if you don't know where
that might be (I didn't think I said those exact words) go
ahead and say something when you see it. I think there are
places in the scriptures that look like something you might
question, but usually they are ambiguous and not clear. But
there are plenty of clear passages that someone can follow
about which there is no confusion. You know, this is one
of those deep theological puzzles that people wonder about
and discuss. But I have an idea that might answer it. At
one time, God stated that he didn't have a man to stand in
the gap to pray for Israel. I heard a preacher say that he read
that over and over, and didn't know what that meant. But he
said that suddenly he realized that what it is saying is that
he limits himself to our prayers. It's a good question,
Louann. Ohhh..I found the verse:
Ezekiel 22:30:
"And I sought for a man among them, that should make up
the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that
I should not destroy it: but I found none."
This sounds to me like he is saying that he is going to
move and act on something unless we make intercession
for people, places and things. I'd say he is telling believers
that he is giving them power with prayer if they will use it.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
or in the sent file or in drafts. We had a power outage and
I knew I lost a post but I don't know which one. Ever had
that happen? Boy is it maddening.
>
I obviously misread your post, and when I read it again,
I realized it and attempted to answer what you had really
said. What I had said above is that God is repelled by
sin, so that would not make him be like sin. But you,
being the brilliant and deep thinker that you are went
further and came up with what you did, which is an
interesting twist. What I was trying to convey is that
feeling of the one magnet pushing away from the other
with this force that you can feel as you try to put the
magnets together. On the other hand, sin mimicks God.
A person wanting to sin wants to be his own God. But
there is only one person that can be God, and that's
God. The rest we spell with a little "g." You know,
we see these movies where someone has a computer
that a genius has made and then it wants to take over
the world and bypass the maker. Well, in reality, I
don't think that the Creator's creations can be greater
than he is.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Mike L" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:416f34e9-baab-41f3...@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On 1 July, 11:00, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> "rmcbane" <rmcb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Re62m.1875$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > A really wierd stretch, in fact a twist. So don't
> > twist the truth.
>
>
> You're the one who devised the twisted analogy. So don't blame your
> readers.
>
I stated a simple truth. He saw something
more than I had said.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
More hate filled vengeance from you so-called "loving" god?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, it is a case of someone who knows what the bible really is is
better that a believer like you at explaining reality.
The bible is a work of fiction. Your god, like all others, is just the
invention of primitive man - a tool used to explain things that are
far better explained by science.
> You also indicate
>that if you question someone, then you are not deluded,
>but they are because you question them. Bless your heart.
Why would you want to bless his blood pump?
>>
>Suzanne
>>
>>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:709m45p6af5vjj198...@4ax.com...
>On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 03:00:36 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >hates sin
>> in man,
>> > and one who
>> >has abundunt
>> anger and retribution without
>> pardon and mercy.
>>>
>> >Suzanne
>>>
>> I've corrected your comment.
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
>No, you have lied
No, unlike you I've never felt the need to lie on usenet.
>about what I wrote by adding to
>my words like I had written them.
As I said, I corrected your errors.
> I did not write
>the above.
A pity you cannot post with a bit more honesty.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Mike L" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:416f34e9-baab-41f3...@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>On 1 July, 11:00, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>> "rmcbane" <rmcb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Re62m.1875$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> > It's a stretch to say that God must be like sin.
>> > A really wierd stretch, in fact a twist. So don't
>> > twist the truth.
>>
>There's that post!!
>>
>> You're the one who devised the twisted analogy. So don't blame your
>> readers.
>>
>I didn't "devise" a twisted analogy, Mike.
Yes, you did.
>I stated a simple truth. He saw something
>more than I had said.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
wf3h
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
no one knows what it means to 'believe the bible'. that construct is
a 19th century concept and was missing in christian tradition for
almost the entire history of the religion. one believes in god. one
does not 'believe in the bible'. it's a meaningless concept
and yes, it's possible for an atheist to be more objective about the
bible than a believer.
so, as to confusion...take the mote out of your eye....to coin a
phrase...
TomS
<poU2m.3314$bq1...@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, Suzanne stated..."
Are you suggesting that the *only* belief in God is that which is
a consequence of belief in the Bible?
And I've met enough people who think that whatever it is that they
happen to believe, that belief is the only one that counts as true
belief in the Bible. (Needless to say, several of those people have
little knowledge of the Bible. Perhaps belief in the Bible does not
require that one actually gain familiarity with the Bible. It's
more of a "conceptual" thing.)
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Louann Miller
@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Louann, you need to show where I am supposed to have
> said "God has the sole and absolute ability, at any time,
> to make anyone a believer..." or if you don't know where
> that might be (I didn't think I said those exact words) go
> ahead and say something when you see it.
M'kay. I didn't intend a word for word quote but a paraphrase. A fair
praraphrase, I think.
-----
"Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in news:hZ_1m.1874$bq1.351
@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
> But a
> person cannot know if God exists unless it is the Lord,
> himself, that reveals himself to that individual.
----
There ya go. You wrote clearly, I don't see any other way to read that
bit.
rmcbane
It was your analogy. And readers seeing something in an analogy that
you didn't intend is the risk you take when you choose to use an analogy
and don't think it completely through. In this case I knew that you did
not intend to equate God to sin but I found it amusing that you would
write something that could allow a reader to infer that you did.
--
Richard McBane
Walter Bushell
"Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote:
> You are showing some confusion. By your statements, you
> must think that if someone doesn't believe the Bible, they
> can tell others who God is more accurately than those that
> do believe the Bible. That's illogical. You also indicate
> that if you question someone, then you are not deluded,
> but they are because you question them. Bless your heart.
> >
> Suzanne
> >
One who believes that God is poorly described in the Bible would believe
that those who don't believe in the Bible would more accurately describe
God, surely. For one thing, She's Black.
Matt Silberstein
<pr...@panix.com> in <proto-AB63F1....@news.panix.com>
wrote:
Old joke. And, of course, it really does not conflict with the Bible.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Suzanne
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:256534237.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
than the poster that I was replying to was saying.
Your question seems to deal with someone's religion,
but the other poster seemed to be saying that if someone
wanted to tell others about God to not get their ideas
from the best selling book that tells about God. To
me that's like telling someone to not go to a doctor
if you have a broken arm.
>
In answer to your question, I do believe that the Bible
is the best source of information about God, or I would
not be a Christian. However, it is the Holy Spirit of
God that is the best source. Helen Keller, who grew
up both deaf and blind said that before she could
understand that people were trying to communicate with
her as a young child, and before she could read the Bible
with Braille, she said "I knew Him...I just didn't know
his name."
>
> And I've met enough people who think that whatever it is that they
> happen to believe, that belief is the only one that counts as true
> belief in the Bible. (Needless to say, several of those people have
> little knowledge of the Bible. Perhaps belief in the Bible does not
> require that one actually gain familiarity with the Bible. It's
> more of a "conceptual" thing.)
>
about some saying they believe the Bible but their
Bible's may be collecting dust on some lonely shelf
in their house. It's possible, too, that they could be
a new believer and not know all about the things in
the Bible that could help them. Now, before Jesus
allowed the soldiers to take him, he prayed in the
Garden of Gethsemane that his followers would be
sanctified by God's word, and by the word of the
testimony of his followers. Their testimony became
the New Testament. And no, I don't think that belief
in the Bible means only a conceptual thing. It's like a
muscle. You have to use it in order for it to work
right. But now, some people get the idea that when
a person stands up for the Bible, that they are
worshipping the Bible and that is not accurate. The
ultimate source even if you read the Bible is the
Holy Spirit who gives one the understanding of
what they are reading.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
my analogy to mean. If God avoids sin, that does not make
him be like sin.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Mike L" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:416f34e9-baab-41f3...@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> "rmcbane" <rmcb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Re62m.1875$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
> > It's a stretch to say that God must be like sin.
> > A really wierd stretch, in fact a twist. So don't
> > twist the truth.
>
> You're the one who devised the twisted analogy. So don't blame your
> readers.
>
your negative reasoning cause something to
become positive.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
But not all people that would do that have what you are
saying as a motive.
>
Suzanne
Burkhard
Your analogy was to a magnet. But with magnets, opposite poles attract,
like poles repel. Since your argument was God repels sin like a magnet,
and with magnets, like poles repel, God is like sin - according to
_your_ analogy
Andrew Cunningham
> No, the father in the story that I told had no idea at all
> of punishing his boys. He told them that they could
> have anything in the store that they wanted, and he
> meant it. He gave them free will. He guided them though
> towards what he knew they would want most of all
> because he understood his little children very well.
Then it is not a valid comparison. You are the one who stated that the
deity is able to see into the future, that he knows what will happen.
Thus, either there needs to be some variable within the story that
represents this or your story is meaningless as a comparison.
> However, you are reading into this what you must feel
> about God that I don't think is true. You are assuming
> that God is an ogre. You don't understand that Satan
> wanted to sabotage God's creation and take it over and
> himself be God. God's salvation (the Messiah dying for
> people's sins and taking the punishment for them) is a
> rescue, not a straight-jacket.
God can see into the future, correct? He knows all that will ever
happen? It is then impossible for the devil to sabotage any of his
plans unless the devil is more powerful than god.
> As for the dog that you entered into the story that was
> not there originally, no I would not do that to a dog.
> But neither did the father lock the boys in the house,
> so I don't quite get the comparison. But again, you
> seem to have the idea that God is mean like that. He
> isn't. Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is in
> the Bible? It's called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."
> What it is, is man attributing unto Satan, the works
> of the Lord. In other words, man mistrusts God and
> he thinks God is up to something, rather than that God
> loves us and wants to rescue us from the mortality that
> Satan wanted us to be caught in.
You are the one who claimed that god had a will, that he has plans
because he knows what will happen. To give Adam and Eve a test when he
should know the outcome of the test(that they will fail) would be
similar to keeping a dog inside to house train it, knowing that the
dog has to eventually go to the bathroom in the house. So, either you
must deny the omniscience of god, or you must deny the logic in
blaming anything on the devil.
> Do you know that Abraham questioned God's decision
> to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and that God indulged
> him, and showed him why he was going to destroy them?
> Whatever things you are talking about above, is just like
> that.
If god is capable of changing the people in the city through his will,
why would he murder them instead of helping them? Is it that he simply
enjoys being able to take lives? Is it simply easier for an omnipotent
being to kill than to help?
> Now, I'm not sure what Bible stories you are referring to
> above, but let's take the flood of Noah for example. Why
> did God destroy all of those people? In the first place, he
> had plans for people like you to be born. He saw the future
> and wanted you to have a chance, and all of us that live now.
> But in Genesis 5, it tells about the fallen angels taking
> earth women as their wives and producing notorious
> children. The Bible indicates that angels can't be redeemed.
> I think it's because unlike man, they have full knowledge.
So god thought it best to murder the people of Noah's time to give me
a chance? Why am I more deserving of such a chance than them? Do the
lives of different people have different values to god? Does it make
sense to kill your dog if he pees on your floor and then buy a new
one, instead of properly training the original dog?
> In the first place, he already had promised Adam and Eve
> that the Seed/Redeemer (Christ/Messiah) would be born
> in the future that would take away sin, subdue the devil,
> etc. But Satan evidently had plans to produce a race of
> people that were half-angel so that no one could be
> saved and so that no Savior could be born who was fully
> man and fully God. The Savior could not be born if the
> race was not purely human. The Savior had to be sinless
> in order to be the perfect sacrifice to pay for our sins.
> Satan is a fallen angel. He is also very smart. He knew
> that the Messiah could not be born in a state that was
> unredeemable and he knew that God would carry out his
> promises to Abraham, and various patriarchs, Before
> Jesus died on the cross, people would die and stay dead.
> But the curse was overthrown when Christ paid the
> penalty for the sins of the whole world. All will now
> wake up from death and that forever. Here is where it
> says this:
> 1 Corinthians 15:22:
> "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
> made alive."
> So God has good reasons for the things that he does,
> that man does not always understand.
Why would god have to go through such a complex plan to stop the
devil? Why not just use his powers to take away the devil's powers?
Does the devil have greater power than god? Equal power? Why would
god, in his infinite power, allow the devil to do the evil things that
he does? I remember a saying, that evil triumphs when good men do
nothing. This seems to imply that god either isn't omnipotent and
omniscient, or he simply wants evil to triumph.
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 4:31 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> > > "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review of
> > > >> books"
<snip>
> > > The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
> > > does not believe that God is real. From what he says
> > > about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
> > > that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
> > > the blind leading the blind.
>
> > which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian scholar
> > can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
yup
> Or like a creationist writing a book about the ToE. Or a holocaust-
> denier writing a book about Bergen-Belsen.
tricky, but if they wrote honestly and researched their subject
properly it should be possible. You seem to be saying that only
people holding a particular belief are permitted to comment on
that belief. The believer may have a different perspective and
insight but that does not preclude the unbeliever from expressing
an opinion.
ToE and the the halocaust are, of course, of a different nature from
religious belief. They are based on empirical evidence.
> While I am not a believer myself, I can relate to Suzanne's complaint.
I have some, but only a little, sympathy for her view.
> Believers get very little respect from the intelligensia
I think they are sometimes given too much respect. The
"intelligensia" (whoever *they* are) judge opinions on how intelligent
and well-founded they are.
> - even to the
> point where a book about the evolution of (somewhat mistaken) ideas
> of God, is titled as if it were God Himself that were evolving.
some of us have a hard time telling these apart.
> Technically, the biologists here should point out that *populations*
> evolve, not individuals.
depends which version of "evolve" you are using. The title
doesn't necessarily imply evolution in the biolgical sense.
(I haven't read the book so I can't comment on what the author is
actually
talking about).
> So only polytheists can talk about evolving
> gods. Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain
> true to the biological metaphors. Atheists, of course, need to talk
> about evolving ideas and myths. It is just impolite for them to talk
> about 'evolving God(s)' as if the deity were manifestly nothing more
> than the myth.
the deity *is* the myth. I don't see any impolitness. It's impolite to
attempt to impose your personnal belief system on the rest of the
world.
<snip>
> Of course, as Suzanne points out, since I am a non-believer myself,
> my suggestions are another case of the blind leading the ... hmmm ...
> whatever.
which is why she shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.
This is in the same cultural imperialism category as
"well deep down everyone really believes in god"
"we all believe in a Higher Power"
Suzanne can believe what she wishes but she doesn't get to decide
what
I believe (or not) nor can she dictate what I can and cannot hold an
opinion about.
Strangly I find the non-theist apologists more irritating than the
theists.
--
Nick Keighley
Nick Keighley
wrote:
<snip>
> Okay, I give up: where is one going to find monotheists? What cult
> does not have more than one god?
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism (assuming they aren't
christian)
I *love* the easy ones!
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2bd5e30c-d2c3-48fa...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>):
Look left out Sikhism.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
John S. Wilkins
Christianity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, various angels, Satan, demons
Islam: Allah, angels, Jinn, demons
Mormonism: God the Father is distinct from Jesus, and each Mormon can
become a god. Also, angels and demons
So far as I know, Sikhism *is* a pure monotheism, but they have a Guru
whose spirit passes on to the next incarnation.
TomS
<1j2aq6e.191th2d168s7m7N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
>
>Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30 June, 00:07, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Okay, I give up: where is one going to find monotheists? What cult
>> > does not have more than one god?
>>
>>
>> Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism (assuming they aren't
>> christian)
>>
>> I *love* the easy ones!
>
>Christianity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, various angels, Satan, demons
>
>Islam: Allah, angels, Jinn, demons
>
>Mormonism: God the Father is distinct from Jesus, and each Mormon can
>become a god. Also, angels and demons
>
>So far as I know, Sikhism *is* a pure monotheism, but they have a Guru
>whose spirit passes on to the next incarnation.
Unitarianism?
rmcbane
Are you denying that you said, "He is repelled by sin as surely as a
north pole magnet cannot tolerate the presence of another north pole
magnet."???
That is certainly a different statement than "God avoids sin." or even "
God is repelled by sin." As soon as you expanded your statement to
compare his being repulsion to being similar to that of the pole of
magnets, you created an analogy. Unfortunately for you, you did not
consider that a reader might infer you were saying from your analogy.
You used a poor analogy.
--
Richard McBane
Michael Siemon
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:13:37 +1000, in article
> <1j2aq6e.191th2d168s7m7N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
> >
> >Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 30 June, 00:07, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > Okay, I give up: where is one going to find monotheists? What cult
> >> > does not have more than one god?
> >>
> >>
> >> Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism (assuming they aren't
> >> christian)
> >>
> >> I *love* the easy ones!
> >
> >Christianity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, various angels, Satan, demons
> >
> >Islam: Allah, angels, Jinn, demons
> >
> >Mormonism: God the Father is distinct from Jesus, and each Mormon can
> >become a god. Also, angels and demons
> >
> >So far as I know, Sikhism *is* a pure monotheism, but they have a Guru
> >whose spirit passes on to the next incarnation.
>
> Unitarianism?
Isn't that LessThanOrEqualToMono-Theism?
Mike Painter
> >>
>>> which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian scholar
>>> can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
>
> yup
>
>> Or like a creationist writing a book about the ToE. Or a holocaust-
>> denier writing a book about Bergen-Belsen.
>
> tricky, but if they wrote honestly and researched their subject
> properly it should be possible. You seem to be saying that only
> people holding a particular belief are permitted to comment on
> that belief. The believer may have a different perspective and
> insight but that does not preclude the unbeliever from expressing
> an opinion.
>
> ToE and the the halocaust are, of course, of a different nature from
> religious belief. They are based on empirical evidence.
>
shows the bible to be a very poor example of historical fiction,
intersperced with laws that are meaningless in almost any socirty was done
by people of Christian and Jewish faith.
A christian scholar might be able to write a good version of a book about
any other religion based on what others say but it would take a Muslim
scholar to do any definitive work.
Mike Painter
More than half of Christianity claims three gods which are one god while
insisting that the they are separate. The minority if christians deny this
and hold for three "faces" of the same god. and a still smaller group say
that Christ was not a god.
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30 June, 00:07, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Okay, I give up: where is one going to find monotheists? What cult
>> > does not have more than one god?
>>
>>
>> Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism (assuming they aren't
>> christian)
>>
>> I *love* the easy ones!
>
>Christianity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, various angels, Satan, demons
>
>Islam: Allah, angels, Jinn, demons
>
>Mormonism: God the Father is distinct from Jesus, and each Mormon can
>become a god. Also, angels and demons
>
>So far as I know, Sikhism *is* a pure monotheism, but they have a Guru
>whose spirit passes on to the next incarnation.
But do Late Temple and Rabbinical Judaism qualify?
What about Bahaiism?
--
alias Ernest Major
John S. Wilkins
Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
pure monotheism.
>
> What about Bahaiism?
Hard to say - they seem to commit to all supernatural entities of the
religions they adopty, but reinterpret them as aspects fo the one god.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
> pure monotheism.
Why, if the other supernatural being are created by the One True God or
Goddess (TM) then there is a clear demarkation.
Anyway most religions posit that humans at least are supernatural.
John S. Wilkins
> In article <1j2bvh0.lcvkxnue061xN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
> > pure monotheism.
>
> Why, if the other supernatural being are created by the One True God or
> Goddess (TM) then there is a clear demarkation.
Why? In the Greek, Roman and Phoenician pantheons, some of the gods were
created by older gods (and sometimes the created gods killed the older
gods), and we still call them gods/
>
> Anyway most religions posit that humans at least are supernatural.
But the distinction is between humans and those entities that are, as it
were, superstimulus entities, counterintuitively strong, influential or
capable.
Walter Bushell
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 otJul 2009 18:54:03 -0400, in talk.origins , Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> in <proto-AB63F1....@news.panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <poU2m.3314$bq1...@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You are showing some confusion. By your statements, you
> >> must think that if someone doesn't believe the Bible, they
> >> can tell others who God is more accurately than those that
> >> do believe the Bible. That's illogical. You also indicate
> >> that if you question someone, then you are not deluded,
> >> but they are because you question them. Bless your heart.
> >> >
> >> Suzanne
> >> >
> >
> >One who believes that God is poorly described in the Bible would believe
> >that those who don't believe in the Bible would more accurately describe
> >God, surely. For one thing, She's Black.
>
> Old joke. And, of course, it really does not conflict with the Bible.y
Jokes don't stay around long if they don't have a point. And this one
has a very sharp point.
Bu why do you think I'm joking?
Walter Bushell
"Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote:
> You seem to be asking something a little differently
> than the poster that I was replying to was saying.
> Your question seems to deal with someone's religion,
> but the other poster seemed to be saying that if someone
> wanted to tell others about God to not get their ideas
> from the best selling book that tells about God.
Hmm, might be the best selling, although many are give aways, and sit on
shelves unread. Fortunately for Christian preachers as reading the Bible
is the biggest gateway to atheism there is, for Christians, that is. The
Jews have an entirely different book.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j2bvh0.lcvkxnue061xN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
> > > pure monotheism.
> >
> > Why, if the other supernatural being are created by the One True God or
> > Goddess (TM) then there is a clear demarkation.
> sa> Why? In the Greek, Roman and Phoenician pantheons, some of the gods were
> created by older gods (and sometimes the created gods killed the older
> gods), and we still call them gods/
> >
> > Anyway most religions posit that humans at least are supernatural.
>
> But the distinction is between humans and those entities that are, as it
> were, superstimulus entities, counterintuitively strong, influential or
> capable.
Are you changing your statement above to supernatural beings of great
power?
John S. Wilkins
> In article <1j2c19r.17dyn9qqnzlhcN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1j2bvh0.lcvkxnue061xN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
> > > > pure monotheism.
> > >
> > > Why, if the other supernatural being are created by the One True God or
> > > Goddess (TM) then there is a clear demarkation.
> > sa> Why? In the Greek, Roman and Phoenician pantheons, some of the gods were
> > created by older gods (and sometimes the created gods killed the older
> > gods), and we still call them gods/
> > >
> > > Anyway most religions posit that humans at least are supernatural.
> >
> > But the distinction is between humans and those entities that are, as it
> > were, superstimulus entities, counterintuitively strong, influential or
> > capable.
>
> Are you changing your statement above to supernatural beings of great
> power?
Calling humans "supernatural" is not to call them gods, since we
experience humans on a daily basis. Even the most substance dualist of
religions treats humans as needing to do something *more* to become
divine than just be humans.
*Super*natural beings are beings that do more than the natural. Humans
are not, on that account, supernatural even if you do think they partake
of some divine nature.
Burkhard
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1j2c19r.17dyn9qqnzlhcN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1j2bvh0.lcvkxnue061xN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>>>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
>>>>> pure monotheism.
>>>> Why, if the other supernatural being are created by the One True God or
>>>> Goddess (TM) then there is a clear demarkation.
>>> sa> Why? In the Greek, Roman and Phoenician pantheons, some of the gods were
>>> created by older gods (and sometimes the created gods killed the older
>>> gods), and we still call them gods/
>>>> Anyway most religions posit that humans at least are supernatural.
>>> But the distinction is between humans and those entities that are, as it
>>> were, superstimulus entities, counterintuitively strong, influential or
>>> capable.
>> Are you changing your statement above to supernatural beings of great
>> power?
>
> Calling humans "supernatural" is not to call them gods, since we
> experience humans on a daily basis. Even the most substance dualist of
> religions treats humans as needing to do something *more* to become
> divine than just be humans.
I don't! ;o)
TomS
<h2n7qb$9qq$1...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard stated..."
You don't *what*?
1. You don't experience humans on a daily basis?
2. You don't treat humans as needing to do something more ...?
3. You don't need to do something more ...?
>>
>> *Super*natural beings are beings that do more than the natural. Humans
>> are not, on that account, supernatural even if you do think they partake
>> of some divine nature.
>
Burkhard
Of course all humans are divine, how else could they have created the
Gods? Nested hierarchies all over again.
(oh, and just because we created the gods doesn't mean they aren't real,
of course ...)
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
We are all individuals here except for me.
Matt Silberstein
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) in
<1j2bvh0.lcvkxnue061xN%jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1j2aq6e.191th2d168s7m7N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins
>> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>> >Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 30 June, 00:07, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > Okay, I give up: where is one going to find monotheists? What cult
>> >> > does not have more than one god?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism (assuming they aren't
>> >> christian)
>> >>
>> >> I *love* the easy ones!
>> >
>> >Christianity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, various angels, Satan, demons
>> >
>> >Islam: Allah, angels, Jinn, demons
>> >
>> >Mormonism: God the Father is distinct from Jesus, and each Mormon can
>> >become a god. Also, angels and demons
>> >
>> >So far as I know, Sikhism *is* a pure monotheism, but they have a Guru
>> >whose spirit passes on to the next incarnation.
>>
>> But do Late Temple and Rabbinical Judaism qualify?
>
>Do they permit supernatural beings other than God? If so, they are not a
>pure monotheism.
Does "god" mean "all willful entities who can do non-natural things"?
For instance, suppose we have "ghosts" in the religions, does that
make it polytheism?
>> What about Bahaiism?
>
>Hard to say - they seem to commit to all supernatural entities of the
>religions they adopty, but reinterpret them as aspects fo the one god.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John S. Wilkins
Pratchettist!
>
> >>> *Super*natural beings are beings that do more than the natural. Humans
> >>> are not, on that account, supernatural even if you do think they partake
> >>> of some divine nature.
> >
> >
John S. Wilkins
Do you need to appease them? If so, then even if they are ancestors,
they are gods. Confucianism has gods just as much as anything else, IMO.
>
> >> What about Bahaiism?
> >
> >Hard to say - they seem to commit to all supernatural entities of the
> >religions they adopty, but reinterpret them as aspects fo the one god.
--
Suzanne
"Andrew Cunningham" <azie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5c2a6e9-2d7c-418b...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 10:52 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> > No, the father in the story that I told had no idea at all
> > of punishing his boys. He told them that they could
> > have anything in the store that they wanted, and he
> > meant it. He gave them free will. He guided them though
> > towards what he knew they would want most of all
> > because he understood his little children very well.
>
> Then it is not a valid comparison. You are the one who stated that
> the
> deity is able to see into the future, that he knows what will
> happen.
> Thus, either there needs to be some variable within the story that
> represents this or your story is meaningless as a comparison.
>
It wasn't very hard to understand the story. Most people
understand it and even ask to borrow it. I gladly tell
them that I, myself, borrowed it, being that it is a good
example of God's secret or hidden will.
>
> > However, you are reading into this what you must feel
> > about God that I don't think is true. You are assuming
> > that God is an ogre. You don't understand that Satan
> > wanted to sabotage God's creation and take it over and
> > himself be God. God's salvation (the Messiah dying for
> > people's sins and taking the punishment for them) is a
> > rescue, not a straight-jacket.
>
> God can see into the future, correct? He knows all that will ever
> happen? It is then impossible for the devil to sabotage any of his
> plans unless the devil is more powerful than god.
>
Yes, God can see into the future. Yes he knows all.
Yes, it is impossible that the devil can sabotage any
of God's plans. No the devil is not more powerful
than God. But the devil is powerful and the Lord
uses that to his advantage. God does allow some
things to happen for reasons of his own that we do
not know about.
>
> > As for the dog that you entered into the story that was
> > not there originally, no I would not do that to a dog.
> > But neither did the father lock the boys in the house,
> > so I don't quite get the comparison. But again, you
> > seem to have the idea that God is mean like that. He
> > isn't. Do you know what the unforgiveable sin is in
> > the Bible? It's called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."
> > What it is, is man attributing unto Satan, the works
> > of the Lord. In other words, man mistrusts God and
> > he thinks God is up to something, rather than that God
> > loves us and wants to rescue us from the mortality that
> > Satan wanted us to be caught in.
>
> You are the one who claimed that god had a will, that he has plans
> because he knows what will happen. To give Adam and Eve a test when
> he
> should know the outcome of the test(that they will fail) would be
> similar to keeping a dog inside to house train it, knowing that the
> dog has to eventually go to the bathroom in the house. So, either
> you
> must deny the omniscience of god, or you must deny the logic in
> blaming anything on the devil.
>
It is the Bible, not me, that tells that God has a will, and
that he knows things ahead of time. He foresaw that man
would get into a salvation delimma and it says in the
Bible that the Messiah is the lamb "slain from the
foundations of the earth." In other words, God had a plan
whereby man could be recued from his rebellion. That
does not mean that God made man rebel.
>
Adam did not rebel against God until his woman did,
and when she did, Adam sinned with his eyes wide
open. She was deceived, but he was not. He wanted
to take her sin upon himself because he knew she
was deceived and he apparently didn't want to lose
her. Adam was willing to even die for her. In the
Old Testament, you read that Adam sinned. In the
New Testament you read that he is a figure like the
one that would come after him, which is like Christ.
>
Jesus was willing to die for his bride, the church (not
a denomination, but the whole body of believers,
collectively). Adam could not atone for the sins of
the whole world because what he did was out of
sin (rebellion against God). But Christ was the
perfect sacrifice for our sins because when he died
for his bride, the church (all the believers), he was
sinless. That means that Christ's act on the cross
undid the permanent curse of death that had passed
onto all humans who had become mortal after
Adam's sin (mortal meaning "to die").
>
The verb in the warning that man would die is a
double word meaning die-die. It refers to death
of the body, but a permanent death even of the
soul and/or spirit. What Christ overturned is the
permanency of death. Now, because he died for
the sins of the whole world (not just for the
believers), all will wake up from death someday.
>
"Thou shalt surely die." (the "surely" doesn't mean
probability as with some doubt, but means "of a
surety." The Hebrew wording literally says this:
"Thou shalt die die." The words "meuth-meuth"
in Hebrew are the "double die," i.e. "You will die
and stay dead," as in permanency.
>
> > Do you know that Abraham questioned God's decision
> > to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and that God indulged
> > him, and showed him why he was going to destroy them?
> > Whatever things you are talking about above, is just like
> > that.
>
> If god is capable of changing the people in the city through his
> will,
> why would he murder them instead of helping them? Is it that he
> simply
> enjoys being able to take lives? Is it simply easier for an
> omnipotent
> being to kill than to help?
>
When someone is speaking of the will of God, they
are not saying that God forces people with his will.
They are saying that God has a plan for their life that
is good, if they will accept his salvation. However,
what you are describing where God would ever make
someone (as in force them) to become a believer, that
would make people be as a Stepford Wife, and that is
not what God wants.
>
> > Now, I'm not sure what Bible stories you are referring to
> > above, but let's take the flood of Noah for example. Why
> > did God destroy all of those people? In the first place, he
> > had plans for people like you to be born. He saw the future
> > and wanted you to have a chance, and all of us that live now.
> > But in Genesis 5, it tells about the fallen angels taking
> > earth women as their wives and producing notorious
> > children. The Bible indicates that angels can't be redeemed.
> > I think it's because unlike man, they have full knowledge.
>
> So god thought it best to murder the people of Noah's time to give
> me
> a chance? Why am I more deserving of such a chance than them? Do the
> lives of different people have different values to god? Does it make
> sense to kill your dog if he pees on your floor and then buy a new
> one, instead of properly training the original dog?
>
You have the wrong angle and viewpoint, and you are
assuming that God is evil. He is not evil at all. If your
country was at war and all of your people would be
killed, would you not defend them? And if someone
was killed of the opposition, do you consider that to
be murder? Most of us would call that self-defense.
Your dog idea is way off base and has no connection
with what has been said. You are seeing God in this
stiff and narrow way that you are creating in your
mind. However, I do like your honesty to speak what
you don't understand or that you wonder about. There
is nothing wrong with that kind of honesty.
Why take the time to go through all that, rather than just
zapping what you want into existence if you have the
power that God has. He wants a relationshp with people.
And he wants the people to have a relationship with him.
It's like a husband and a wife. A husband can bark orders
at his wife and she may (or may not) obey, but if he wants
her heart, he has to be more tender with her and patient,
knowing that she may not understand and helping her to
know she can trust him. And it also works both ways
with a wife wanting a right relationship with her
husband. I think the answer to your last paragraph is
that God is aiming for a trust-relationship, not a
dictatorship.
>
Suzanne
Mike Painter
> "Andrew Cunningham" <azie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5c2a6e9-2d7c-418b...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 10:52 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> No, the father in the story that I told had no idea at all
>>> of punishing his boys. He told them that they could
>>> have anything in the store that they wanted, and he
>>> meant it. He gave them free will. He guided them though
>>> towards what he knew they would want most of all
>>> because he understood his little children very well.
>>
>> Then it is not a valid comparison. You are the one who stated that
>> the
>> deity is able to see into the future, that he knows what will
>> happen.
>> Thus, either there needs to be some variable within the story that
>> represents this or your story is meaningless as a comparison.
>>
> It wasn't very hard to understand the story. Most people
> understand it and even ask to borrow it. I gladly tell
> them that I, myself, borrowed it, being that it is a good
> example of God's secret or hidden will.
The concept of a god seeing into the future is several hundred years behind
the modern concept of a god who is outside time and sees all of it as now.
As for the difficulty of understanding the story, it is quite simple. I've
watched a lot of people die in horrible, horrible ways and been present for
even more after it happened to them.
Near as I can remember none of them requested it of their own free will
I don't know about the ones when I was not present but witnesses said the
couple that were alive when their car turned over, trapped them and they
burned to death tried to get out.
Suzanne again demonstrates the ability to put less though into more words
than anybody else around.
Caranx latus
> "Andrew Cunningham" <azie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> Adam did not rebel against God until his woman did,
> and when she did, Adam sinned with his eyes wide
> open.
I don't see any indication of "rebellion" or "sin" on the part of Adam
or Eve in the Old Testament. What I see is a careless God, allowing two
people who were incapable of understanding right from wrong access to
something that he didn't want them to have access to. When one has no
idea that disobeying is wrong, it is not rebellion to disobey.
And the OT is also very specific about the reason why A&E were evicted
from the Garden. See Genesis 3:22-23. A&E were evicted from the Garden
to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and becoming like God.
> She was deceived, but he was not. He wanted
> to take her sin upon himself because he knew she
> was deceived and he apparently didn't want to lose
> her.
I'd appreciate if you could tell me how that information can be
extracted from what is written in the OT.
> Adam was willing to even die for her. In the
> Old Testament, you read that Adam sinned.
Certainly not by any straightforward reading of the text. I suppose that
if one is allowed to add extrabiblical material, one could make it say
that. But then it really isn't the Bible any more, is it?
<snip>
>> Why would god have to go through such a complex plan to stop the
>> devil? Why not just use his powers to take away the devil's powers?
>> Does the devil have greater power than god? Equal power? Why would
>> god, in his infinite power, allow the devil to do the evil things
>> that
>> he does? I remember a saying, that evil triumphs when good men do
>> nothing. This seems to imply that god either isn't omnipotent and
>> omniscient, or he simply wants evil to triumph.
>>
> Why take the time to go through all that, rather than just
> zapping what you want into existence if you have the
> power that God has. He wants a relationshp with people.
> And he wants the people to have a relationship with him.
> It's like a husband and a wife.
Are you suggesting that God has emotional needs that are not all that
different from what people experience? If not, then perhaps you could
explain to me why God wants a relationship with people.
Suzanne
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-0CBADC....@news.panix.com...
so exciting to talk to us all, that you are simply
beside yourself.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IKV3m.1879$cl4....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Suzanne wrote:
>> "Andrew Cunningham" <azie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b5c2a6e9-2d7c-418b...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 1, 10:52 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, the father in the story that I told had no idea at all
>>>> of punishing his boys. He told them that they could
>>>> have anything in the store that they wanted, and he
>>>> meant it. He gave them free will. He guided them though
>>>> towards what he knew they would want most of all
>>>> because he understood his little children very well.
>>>
>>> Then it is not a valid comparison. You are the one who stated that
>>> the
>>> deity is able to see into the future, that he knows what will
>>> happen.
>>> Thus, either there needs to be some variable within the story that
>>> represents this or your story is meaningless as a comparison.
>>>
>> It wasn't very hard to understand the story. Most people
>> understand it and even ask to borrow it. I gladly tell
>> them that I, myself, borrowed it, being that it is a good
>> example of God's secret or hidden will.
>
> The concept of a god seeing into the future is several hundred years
> behind the modern concept of a god who is outside time and sees all
> of it as now.
>
the foundations of the earth." That is seeing all time in
advance. But God also refers to that time as future when
speaking to Adam and Eve, and others. He uses the term
"In the fulness of time," and he says this "will come" and
not that it already has happened. Seeing all of time as one
does not mean that the action has already taken place.
>
> As for the difficulty of understanding the story, it is quite
> simple. I've watched a lot of people die in horrible, horrible ways
> and been present for even more after it happened to them.
> Near as I can remember none of them requested it of their own free
> will
> I don't know about the ones when I was not present but witnesses
> said the couple that were alive when their car turned over, trapped
> them and they burned to death tried to get out.
>
> Suzanne again demonstrates the ability to put less though into more
> words than anybody else around.
>
Suzanne
John S. Wilkins
Suzanne
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:h2p9v2$hs9$1...@aioe.org...
> Suzanne wrote:
>> "Andrew Cunningham" <azie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>> Adam did not rebel against God until his woman did,
>> and when she did, Adam sinned with his eyes wide
>> open.
>
> I don't see any indication of "rebellion" or "sin" on the part of
> Adam or Eve in the Old Testament. What I see is a careless God,
> allowing two people who were incapable of understanding right from
> wrong access to something that he didn't want them to have access
> to. When one has no idea that disobeying is wrong, it is not
> rebellion to disobey.
>
this as being. Sin is rebellion. It's doing something
other than what you know that God wants you to do.
If you recall, both Adam and Eve said that God said
that they should not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil, and not only that he gave a warning
about it if they did do that, and that they risked having
to die permanently (Hebrew wording "die-die"). That
warning would have been enough to create a feeling
of what is right and what is wrong, since they knew
their maker is the one that was saying it. So I believe
you may be saying they had head knowlege, but not
experiential knowlege.
>
This is a good argument. I can tell you what I think
the answer to it is. I am assuming that you are
saying that since they had not eaten yet of the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and since we
read that their eyes were not "opened" yet to even
know that they were naked, that they therefore did
not know that it was sin to eat of it. OK, let's just
go with this much...
>
I could say to you, "Does a man have to rob a
bank, in order to know that it is wrong?" But you
would know that is not a good comparison because
the man already is grown and has learned conditioned
responses. And...I could give an example of a toddler
who is learning what is right and what is wrong,
according to his parent's idea of right and wrong, and
that leaves something to be desired. But....in the Bible,
it tells that when God was around, Adam and Eve
"heard His presence walking in the Garden." In other
words, they could not see him but felt his presence.
So, in my opinion, the fact that they had already
experienced the very presence of God, taught them
what was right and what was wrong. So, I believe
that they already knew that to eat the fruit was wrong,
and in fact, Eve even said this in great detail to the
Serpent when he tempted her. But he won her over
by telling her a lie about God, and by telling her
she could be smart like God. But the Bible says
that Adam was not deceived and that he knew what
was the wrong thing to do. So, my answer is that the
presence of God is what caused Adam to know
what was the wrong thing, and not experiential
knowledge.
>
> And the OT is also very specific about the reason why A&E were
> evicted from the Garden. See Genesis 3:22-23. A&E were evicted from
> the Garden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life and
> becoming like God.
>
miss this point.
>
>> She was deceived, but he was not. He wanted
>> to take her sin upon himself because he knew she
>> was deceived and he apparently didn't want to lose
>> her.
>
> I'd appreciate if you could tell me how that information can be
> extracted from what is written in the OT.
>
she ate the forbidden fruit, "The serpent beguiled me
and I did eat." So she admitted that she had been
deceived (beguiled). It's also said in the New Testament:
1 Timothy 2:14:
"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression."
>
Then, even though Adam sinned, what he did,
according to a verse in the New Testament was
somehow done sacrificially for Eve's sake in that
the New Testament speaks of him as being in the
spirit of the one that would come after him, which
is Christ:
Romans 5:14:
"Nevertheless death reignted from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that
was to come."
>
This is saying that something about what Adam did
was like the pattern that would be set forth by Jesus.
Jesus was made sin for his bride, the church (all the
believers in Christ collectively, not a denomination),
and Jesus died for his bride. But Adam sinned, but
Christ was sinless when he paid for the sins of all.
Effectively, Christ did away with the permanency
of death, because now ultimately all will awaken
from death and be alive forever, either in one place,
or in that other place. This is also backed up by the
prophet Daniel, that all shall wake up again and go
to one place or the other.
Daniel 12:2:
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shal awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt."
>
And also in the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 15:22:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive."
all:
1 John 2:2:
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
So a person is "saved" not by earning his way, but
because he accepts Jesus' payment for all of his sins,
and turns to the Lord in faith. The person does not
have to be perfect because he has traded his flawed
righteousness for Christ's perfect righteousness.
>
>> Adam was willing to even die for her. In the
>> Old Testament, you read that Adam sinned.
>
> Certainly not by any straightforward reading of the text. I suppose
> that if one is allowed to add extrabiblical material, one could make
> it say that. But then it really isn't the Bible any more, is it?
>
1 Corinthians 15:22 really make it clear, and I think
they suffice without any additions to what the Bible
says.
>>> Why would god have to go through such a complex plan to stop the
>>> devil? Why not just use his powers to take away the devil's
>>> powers?
>>> Does the devil have greater power than god? Equal power? Why would
>>> god, in his infinite power, allow the devil to do the evil things
>>> that
>>> he does? I remember a saying, that evil triumphs when good men do
>>> nothing. This seems to imply that god either isn't omnipotent and
>>> omniscient, or he simply wants evil to triumph.
>>>
>> Why take the time to go through all that, rather than just
>> zapping what you want into existence if you have the
>> power that God has. He wants a relationshp with people.
>> And he wants the people to have a relationship with him.
>> It's like a husband and a wife.
>
> Are you suggesting that God has emotional needs that are not all
> that different from what people experience? If not, then perhaps you
> could explain to me why God wants a relationship with people.
>
The Bible says that we are created "for his pleasure." It
does not say that he has an emotional need. He's really
whole without us. But he loves us.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6615329e-5adc-4397...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
On 29 June, 14:05, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "wf3h" <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 4:31 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
> > > "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>> > > >> review of robert wright's new book, in the "NY times review
>> > > >> of
>> > > >> books"
>
>> > > The man that wrote this review sounds like he, himself,
>> > > does not believe that God is real. From what he says
>> > > about the author of the book, it sounds like he is saying
>> > > that he also does not believe that God exists. Sort of like
>> > > the blind leading the blind.
>
>> > which is a ridiculous argument. it's like saying a christian
>> > scholar
>> > can't write a book on islam. it's wrong on its face
>
> yup
>
> > Or like a creationist writing a book about the ToE. Or a
> > holocaust-
> > denier writing a book about Bergen-Belsen.
>
> tricky, but if they wrote honestly and researched their subject
> properly it should be possible. You seem to be saying that only
> people holding a particular belief are permitted to comment on
> that belief. The believer may have a different perspective and
> insight but that does not preclude the unbeliever from expressing
> an opinion.
>
> ToE and the the halocaust are, of course, of a different nature from
> religious belief. They are based on empirical evidence.
>
> > complaint.
>
> I have some, but only a little, sympathy for her view.
>
Well thanks for that teensy bit.
>
> > Believers get very little respect from the intelligensia
>
> I think they are sometimes given too much respect. The
> "intelligensia" (whoever *they* are) judge opinions on how
> intelligent
> and well-founded they are.
>
> > - even to the
> > point where a book about the evolution of (somewhat mistaken)
> > ideas
> > of God, is titled as if it were God Himself that were evolving.
>
> some of us have a hard time telling these apart.
>
> > Technically, the biologists here should point out that
> > *populations*
> > evolve, not individuals.
>
> depends which version of "evolve" you are using. The title
> doesn't necessarily imply evolution in the biolgical sense.
> (I haven't read the book so I can't comment on what the author is
> actually
> talking about).
>
> > So only polytheists can talk about evolving
> > gods. Monotheists need to talk about *developing* God to remain
> > true to the biological metaphors. Atheists, of course, need to
> > talk
> > about evolving ideas and myths. It is just impolite for them to
> > talk
> > about 'evolving God(s)' as if the deity were manifestly nothing
> > more
> > than the myth.
>
> the deity *is* the myth. I don't see any impolitness. It's impolite
> to
> attempt to impose your personnal belief system on the rest of the
> world.
>
I guess that some people would think it is impolite
to push someone out of the way of a fast approaching
hippo, too.
>
> > Of course, as Suzanne points out, since I am a non-believer
> > myself,
> > my suggestions are another case of the blind leading the ... hmmm
> > ...
> > whatever.
>
Jim, this is reserved for people that lead people to fall
into a ditch, which I don't think applies to you.
>
> which is why she shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.
>
> This is in the same cultural imperialism category as
>
> "well deep down everyone really believes in god"
> "we all believe in a Higher Power"
>
Sorry, but that does not reflect anything that I believe.
>
> Suzanne can believe what she wishes but she doesn't get to decide
> what
> I believe (or not) nor can she dictate what I can and cannot hold an
> opinion about.
>
Suzanne doesn't want to dictate what you should
believe. I believe you need to make up your own
mind and not let someone else make it up for you.
>
Suzanne
Gregory A Greenman
>
> "Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:IKV3m.1879$cl4....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> > words than anybody else around.
> Baloney.
Baloney? I really can't think of anyone that has you beat in this
department. I mean, really, more than a few of your responses sound
like you've put no more than a second's thought into what the
person you are replying to has said.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com